The Keiser Report: Free Money to the People

10 Sat Oct 2020

Posted by ztnh in Macroeconomic Analysis, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), Philosophy, Political Economy

Tags

Dr. Zeus Yiamouyiannis, MMT, Modern Monetary Theory, Modern Money Theory, RT, Stacey Herbert, Steve Keen (b. 1953), The Keiser Report, Timothy Maxwell "Max" Keiser (b. 1960)

LUMPENPROLETARIAT—Economist types have the most interesting perspectives on the world. Don’t they? Although I don’t always agree with everything Max Keiser says on The Keiser Report, having casually followed his work and ideas over the years. At the very least, I trust that he knows his shit. The guy is a serious financial market investor and analyst, who brings real world financial market experience to bear on his economic analyses. And he has a sense of humor, which is a plus.

Max Keiser and (spouse) Stacey Herbert present decent politics because they seem to ‘fight for the little guy, or little gal‘, instead of simply deifying Wall Street and stock markets without regard for labor. Perhaps, it’s wishful thinking, but one gets a sense of preferential treatment for the poor in the editorial slant.

At any rate, The Keiser Report, is a useful tool for working class folks, and/or non-economist types, to better understand economics and financial markets. And it offers cool guests, like Dr. Zeus Yiamouyiannis (yah-meh-yahniss), an economics blogger and educator, who advanced a labor theory of value at one point in the discussion about the current state of the western post-lockdown economies. Imagine that! The labor theory of value is still being used in public discourse on major media platforms in 2020. Of course, Max Keiser played devil’s advocate by suggesting a purely “subjective theory of value”. But it’s always cool to see Dr. Karl Marx continue to be relevant and useful to understanding our world in the present day.

In the opening segment of The Keiser Report, “Free Money to the People”, E1602 (6 OCT 2020), Stacey brought up the increasing relevance of MMT (modern monetary theory) as the deficit myth becomes ever more exposed to the general public. They cited their earlier Keiser Report coverage of MMT going back to circa 2009 Steve Keen interviews. Max and Stacey offered their perspectives on how the evolution of public understanding of MMT will affect public economic wellbeing, as ongoing debates in Congress continue over the size and scope of any further economic cash aid to American families and households in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak and police state response and economic lockdown, which disproportionately harmed working class and poor people. And, of course, the U.S. government doesn’t give preferential treatment to small businesses or small landlords, but is willing to bail out big business and large landlords, such as Blackstone, who would stand to lose from any bans on evictions or foreclosures.

STACEY HERBERT (c. 2:53): “Right. Well, that is what we have been doing here for the past eleven years at The Keiser Report, looking at the sinking of the ‘Central-Bank-Fiat’ Titanic.
“And here is a headline along these same lines, where we’re looking at the threat of a ban on eviction and foreclosures. Well, on the one hand, you’re saying, ‘Well, Blackstone is now one of the largest private landlords in America. So, ha-ha to them! But, you know, on the other hand, the Fed has their back, has Blackstone’s back. They get to dump their bad debts, like all these foreclosures, that aren’t allowed to happen, and Blackstone is the largest private landholder, they’ll be able to dump it on the Fed’s balance sheet.
“So, you know, Schwarzman at Blackstone will never have to pay for this. But the small landlords will pay for that.
“Here, we’re looking at the difference between the big and the small, why we have the rising wealth and income gap. And it looks like the Fed is starting to notice this. And their answer is what the people have been demanding—MMT, modern monetary theory—that, if you could print money for the banks, why not for us?
“And I want to add that one of our first episodes ever, the first five episodes of Keiser Report, we spoke to Steve Keen in 2009. And he said that we should have quantitative easing for the people, rather than for the banks. And this is what it looks like the Fed is gonna get ready to do.
“What’s behind the Fed’s project to send free money to people directly?
So, on September 23rd, the Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester spoke. She, basically, flagged that something called the Central Bank Digital Currency is coming.
Stacey Herbert, The Keiser Report, “Free Money to the People”, E1602

In the second half, Max Keiser and Dr. Zeus discussed notions of economic nihilism manifested as growing inequality and diminishing quality of life for a growing number of people, as an increasingly diminishing number of people capture and horde a growing amount of wealth. Evidently, economic nihilism is diagnosed when diagnoses of economic fraud and financial fraud have gone unheeded for too long, as hamstrung white collar criminologists, such as Prof. William K. Black, and financial regulators have been cut back since President Clinton’s “Reinventing Government” initiatives, which weakened financial regulations leading to the 2007/2008 Global Financial Crisis. The recent case of JP Morgan is cited by Max Keiser, providing evidence substantiating Dr. Zeus’s arguments.

MAX KEISER: “So, in the case of JP Morgan, who we talk about on this show often—Jaime Dimon, who heads […] that bank—they recently agreed to pay a $1 billion dollar fine. They avoided criminal racketeering charges for rigging precious metals markets for over a decade.
“They were reportedly earning $250 million dollars annually in profits on their gold price rigging. So, it looks like they returned under half the money, that they stole.
“So, you would put that under the category of existential nihilism.”
DR. ZEUS YIAMOUYIANNIS: “Absolutely.”

Messina

***

Channel: RT
Program: The Keiser Report, “Free Money to the People”, E1602
Date: 6 OCT 2020

[Transcript excerpts by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and The Keiser Report]

Keiser Report: All that was hidden is being revealed - RT | Lyssna här | Poddtoppen.se

THE KEISER REPORT—Hi. I’m Max Keiser. This is The Keiser Report. First of all, a big thank you to RT espanol. All of our shows are dubbed into Spanish.

—snip—

STACEY HERBERT: (c. 2:53) “Right. Well, that is what we have been doing here for the past eleven years at The Keiser Report, looking at the sinking of the ‘Central-Bank-Fiat’ Titanic.

“And here is a headline along these same lines, where we’re looking at the threat of a ban on eviction and foreclosures. Well, on the one hand, you’re saying, ‘Well, Blackstone is now one of the largest private landlords in America. So, ha-ha to them! But, you know, on the other hand, the Fed has their back, has Blackstone’s back. They get to dump their bad debts, like all these foreclosures, that aren’t allowed to happen, and Blackstone is the largest private landholder, they’ll be able to dump it on the Fed’s balance sheet.

“So, you know, Schwarzman at Blackstone will never have to pay for this. But the small landlords will pay for that.

“Here, we’re looking at the difference between the big and the small, why we have the rising wealth and income gap. And it looks like the Fed is starting to notice this. And their answer is what the people have been demanding—MMT, modern monetary theory—that, if you could print money for the banks, why not for us?

“And I want to add that one of our first episodes ever, the first five episodes of Keiser Report, we spoke to Steve Keen in 2009. And he said that we should have quantitative easing for the people, rather than for the banks. And this is what it looks like the Fed is gonna get ready to do.

“What’s behind the Fed’s project to send free money to people directly?”

—snip—

MAX KEISER: (c. 18:44) “I believe one of the terms, that you use […] is the term nihilism. So, you use that term. And explain how you use that in your essay.”

DR. ZEUS YIAMOUYIANNIS: “Nihilism simply means to me: If you followed it to its next logical extent, where would it end up? It would end up in nothing. Right? […]

“So, if we’re gonna follow this program of hyperconcentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people, what’s gonna happen to our freedom? What’s gonna happen to our creativity? What’s gonna happen to our quality of life? All these things, we truly value and become values.

“So, if you follow where we’re going right now, we end in nihilism, in economic nihilism, and to a certain extent existential nihilism. You know, from a philosophic standpoint, it’s like where value simply becomes us becoming slaves to somebody else’s notion of getting another number on their balance sheet.

“That’s not the kind of future I want to have. I don’t think it’s the future you want to have. So, the nihilism term, I think, is a bit of a warning as well as a descriptor of where we’re heading, if we continue along this line.” (c. 20:04)

MAX KEISER: “So, in the case of JP Morgan, who we talk about on this show often—Jaime Dimon, who heads that up, that bank—they recently agreed to pay a $1 billion dollar fine. They avoided criminal racketeering charges for rigging precious metals markets for over a decade.

“They were reportedly earning $250 million dollars annually in profits on their gold price rigging. So, it looks like they returned under half the money, that they stole.

“So, you would put that under the category of existential nihilism.”

DR. ZEUS YIAMOUYIANNIS: “Absolutely.”

—snip—

[Transcript will be expanded as time and/or resource constraints allow. Cheers. Solidarity.]

***

[12 OCT 2020]

[Last modified on 14 OCT 2020 at 06:21 PDT]

[All images are original, reinterpretations, or used under creative commons/fair use.]

[Image citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Keiser#/media/File:Max_keiser_in_a_london_taxi.jpg%5D

2016 California Voter Guide for the November General Election

02 Wed Nov 2016

Posted by ztnh in Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Fascism, Anti-Imperialism, Anti-War, Political Science, Presidential Election 2016

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

"Prop. 51 Versus a State-Owned Bank: How California Can Save $10 Billion on a $9 Billion Loan" by Ellen Brown, Ajamu Baraka, Amy Goodman, Bernie Sanders, California Proposition 51 (2016), California Proposition 53 (2016), California Proposition 64 (2016), California Proposition 66 (2016), Dr. Ellen Hodgson Brown (b. 1945), Dr. Jill Stein, Dr. Stephanie Kelton, Electoral College, electoral reform, Fair Vote (Washington D.C.), Flashpoints, Green Party, Hard Knock Radio, Hayward Measure EE (Cannabis Sin Tax), Huffington Post, James Comey (b. 1960), La Onda Bajita (KPFA Radio), Letters and Politics, MMT, Modern Monetary Theory, Modern Money Theory, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, politics of California, progressivism, Proposition 59, Proposition 62, Proposition 64, Proposition 67, sin tax, voter suppression

Vote_12345 LUMPENPROLETARIAT—The 2016 November General Election is less than a week away. Here is our voter guide, which mostly agrees with the Green Party Voter Guide, which your author received via snail mail as a registered Green Party member. [1] As is self-evident to readers of previous articles on Lumpenproletariat, and all accumulated news and information and insight lead us to our best political conclusions, we are recommending that the American working classes (and others) vote for Dr. Jill Stein (for U.S. president) and human rights leader Ajamu Baraka (for U.S. vice president). The interests of the American working classes would be best served by the leadership of the Green Party and a Stein/Baraka administration. [2]

For California voters, we’re also recommending a yes vote on Proposition 64 (Marijuana Legalisation) towards the decriminalisation of medicinal cannabis use (and doctor-patient relationships), subversion of the prison-industrial complex, and relief of overcrowded prisons. [3] Prop. 64 has been endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Courage Campaign, California Democratic Party, California League of Conservation Voters, and others. We urge people to vote no on cannabis and tobbaco sin taxes, such as Hayward Measure EE calling for a 15% sin tax on medical and non-medical cannabis sales to be added to local sales tax. Most sales taxes are regressive. Sin taxes are also discriminatory. Proposition 56 is another sin tax we oppose. Taxes must be placed, as originally intended, primarily on the major corporations, often the committers of the greatest sins, who benefit the most from society’s infrastructure and court systems and such.

We recommend yes votes on Proposition 59 (Campaign Finance, Repeal Citizens United), Proposition 62 (End the Death Penalty), and Proposition 67 (Uphold the Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags). We recommend a no vote on Proposition 66, which seeks to speed up California’s execution process by limiting limit successive petitions, requiring appointed attorneys who take non-capital appeals to accept death penalty appeals, and exempting prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Prop. 66 is opposed by the editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and The Sacramento Bee. What do you think about the various statewide propositions? Here are our endorsements:

November 2016 California Ballot Propositions

Proposition 51 (School Bonds, High-Interest Debt-Funding for K-12 and Community College)—NO (funding schools is good, but bonds are bad; see public banking alternatives) [4]
Proposition 52 (Medical Hospital Fee Program)—NEUTRAL (leaning YES; see Tim Redmond, et al. arguing YES on 52; it seems the hospital fee is reimbursed through federal government matching funds resulting in a net benefit to hospital industry. Ultimately, the state, the people, pay the hospital industry more than hospitals will pay per Prop. 52. In that sense, this is a delayed tax on California taxpayers.) [5]
Proposition 53 (Revenue Bonds, Require Statewide Voter Approval)—NO [6]
Proposition 54 (Legislature, Legislation and Proceedings Initiative, Increase Transparency)—YES [7]
Proposition 55 (‘Millionaire’ Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare)—YES [8]
Proposition 56 (Cigarette ‘Sin Tax’ to Fund Healthcare, Research, Law Enforcement, etc.)—NO [9]
Proposition 57 (Criminal Sentences, Parole Option, Judiciary Discretion for Trying Juveniles as Adults, etc.)—YES [10]
Proposition 58 (English Proficiency, Multilingual Education Option)—YES [11]
Proposition 59 (Campaign Finance, Repeal Citizens United)—YES [12]
Proposition 60 (Pornographic Films, Redundant Condom Requirement)—NO [13]
Proposition 61 (State Prescription Drug Purchases, Competitive Pricing Standards)—YES [14]
Proposition 62 (End the Death Penalty)—YES [15]
Proposition 63 (Firearms, Ammunition Sales Restrictions)—NO [16]
Proposition 64 (Cannabis Legalisation for Adults)—YES [3]
Proposition 65 (Redirect Funds Collected for Carryout Plastic Bags)—NO [17]
Proposition 66 (Death Penalty Procedures, Speed Up Execution Process)—NO [18]
Proposition 67 (Uphold the Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags)—YES [19]

We know it’s not easy for the working classes to take time out of our busy, hectic, and often stressful days to keep up with the politics of California and study all of the political records of all the candidates and reflect upon and discuss the pros and cons of all of the ballot propositions and legislation proposals on your state’s 2016 Official Voter Information Guide. But we encourage you, thoughtful readers, wherever you are, to take heart and dig in. Democracy holds better promise for the people than plutocracy, which is what we get when we don’t pay attention. As Ralph Nader says, if you don’t turn on to politics, politics will turn on you. So, talk to your friends and family members and neighbours about what they think about the presidential election, the political parties, the state and local contests, and their own level of participation and sense of civic duty. (We include various election coverage resources below.) Surely, our hopes for democracy are half as important as the many hours we may invest in our hobbies, such as spectator sports or video games, learning countless statistics and sports team details. Let’s take some time away from work and play to think about how we can make the most of our democratic right to vote and make sure that our economic system is working for us—the working classes—not just the rich, the elites, and the capitalist owning classes. [20]

Messina

[Thanks to RDM for contributing research on Prop. 64 to this article.]

***

[The following are notes from a copy of the printed pamphlet, which registered Green Party members receive via snail mail. Online version (of the printed copy below) at acgreens.org. Also see cagreens.org and sfgreenparty.org.]

GREEN VOTER GUIDE—[c. OCT 2016] A publication of the Green Party of Alameda County, an affiliate of the Green Party of California.

Table of contents:

Federal Offices ………………………………………….. 1, 3, 4 [21]
- Dr. Jill Stein (for president)
- Ajamu Baraka (for vice president)
State Senate and Assembly …………………………………. 4
- no endorsements (see write-up) [22]
State Propositions ………………………………. 1, 16, 17, 18
- 59 – Campaign Finance, Repeal Citizens United — Yes
- 62 – End the Death Penalty — Yes, Yes, Yes!
- 64 – Marijuana Legalization — Yes [23]
- 67 – Uphold the Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags — Yes
Superior Court Judge
Peralta Colleges
City of Alameda
City of Albany
City of Berkeley
- Understanding and using “Ranked Choice Voting” (RCV) [24]
City of Emeryville
City of Fremont
Hayward Area
- Hayward Measure EE – [NO] [25]
City of Oakland
Special Districts
County Measures
Voter Card

Our endorsement process

For many of the candidates’ races, we created questionnaires for the candidates and solicited their responses. For others we conducted over-the-phone or in-person interviews. We also gathered information from Greens and others working on issues in their communities and from the public record. For local measures we gathered information as comprehensively as possible. The Green Party of Alameda County held endorsement meetings to consider all the information and make decisions. Our endorsements are as follows:

When we list “No endorsement,” either we had unresolved differences that prevented us from agreeing on a position, or no position was warranted.

We only endorse bond measures for essential public projects that are unlikely to be funded otherwise. Our endorsement “Yes, with standard bond reservations” reflects our position that funding through bonds is more costly and therefore less fiscally responsible than a tax.

Where no recommendation appears, we did not evaluate the race or measure due to a lack of volunteers. Working on the Voter Guide is fun! Give us a call now to get signed up to help on the next edition!

Learn more at AC GREENS.

***

FREE SPEECH RADIO GENERAL ELECTION COVERAGE

KPFA NEWS—[8 NOV 2016]

[(21:00 PST) (c. 0:01) Music break/local station identifications, appeals for support, and local announcements. KPFA has Mark Mericle come on the air announcing Trump is polling stronger than expected. Stocks are crashing in response to a potential Trump presidency. News Headlines are read by Mark Mericle. Mark Mericle interviews Mitch Perry(sp?) in Tampa, Florida with FloridaPolitics.com. (21:19 PST) Mericle continues updating the ‘horse race’. (21:20 PST) (c. 0:20) Sharon Saboda(sp?) reports from Hillary Clinton camp. Mark Mericle interview Gavin Newsom.]

[KPFA News Department’s Max Pringle reads KPFA News Headlines]

[(c. 21:35 PST) (c. 35:00) Next report.]

[(c. 21:45 PST) Mark Mericle speaks with Tom Campbell, former south bay congressperson.]

[(c. 21:47 PST) (c. 47:00) Mark Mericle interviews Brit-sounding Matt Cherry, who led the campaign for Proposition 62, to abolish the death penalty in California. SF Bay Area is trending in favour of Prop. 62, but the rest of California seems to be against Prop. 62. Matt Cherry cautions premature calls, as the Los Angeles area has still not fully reported election results. (c. 21:52) Mark Mericle dismissed Matt Cherry.]

[(c. 21:52 PST) Mark Mericle gets into local SF Bay Area measures. Oakland Measure HH, the sugar soda tax seems to be winning. Unidentified guest interviews Dianne Wolsen(sp?) on the sugar soda tax.]

[snip]

[(c. 22:02 PST) News Headlines (read by Aileen Alfandary)]

[(c. 22:17 PST) Mark Mericle dismisses Don Nielsen(sp?) on presidential election commentary.]

[(c. 22:17 PST) Next guest, Mike Walinski(sp?) (CA Teachers Association), on statewide ballot propositions.]

[(c. 22:25 PST) KPFA reporter on local politician Jesse Arreguin poised to be the first Latino mayor of Berkeley, endorsed by Bernie Sanders. Arreguin speaks with KPFA’s Mark Mericle. (c. 22:31) Mark Mericle dismisses Arreguin.]

[(c. 22:32) Music break]

[(c. 23:46 PST) New VP Mike Pence gives victory speech and introduces new US president Donald Trump.]

[(c. 23:51 PST) Donald Trump takes the stage, announces that Hillary Clinton just telephoned him to concede the election, gives bloated and vacuous victory speech. (c. 23:59 PST) Trump acknowledges his campaign team and offers his concluding remarks, including thanks to Rudy Giuliani, Governor Chris Christy, Senator Jeff Sessions, Dr. Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee and family, General Mike Flynn(sp?), General Kellog(sp?), et al.]

[(c. 00:03 PST) Donald Trump continues after somebody announced him as the ‘next president of the United States’. Trump acknowledges the Secret Service and “law enforcement”. Trump promises to “do a great job”.]

[(c. 00:05 PST) Mark Mericle cuts in, as it seems Donald Trump has no intention of wrapping up his victory speech anytime soon. Mericle reads credits of KPFA News Department’s coverage of the 2016 November General Election coverage.]

[snip] (c. 00:05 PST) (c. 3:05:00)

Learn more at KPFA NEWS.

PACIFICA RADIO—[8 NOV 2016]

[Four-hour special broadcast is scheduled for Election Day, Tuesday, November 8, 2016, starting at 5pm (when the first time zone of election polls close on the east coast at 8pm eastern time zone).]

[(c. 62:00) Second hour begins. Florida overwhelmingly passes medical cannabis legalisation.]

[(c. 74:00) Thomas Frank critiques Hillary Clinton’s type of “liberalism”. But he, nevertheless, admits that he voted for Hillary Clinton. And, saliently, he carefully avoids the word neoliberalism]

[(c. 76:00) Dr. Malveaux tepidly enunciates the explosive word “neoliberalism”. But she does so dismissively.]

[(c. 77:00) Amy Goodman moves on to voter suppression issues, including a lawsuit invoking the Ku Klux Klan Act and its legacy.]

[Guest argues that a moral hunger exists among liberals to reclaim the moral centre.]

[(c. 95:00) Dr. Malveaux, the indefatigable Hillary Clinton apologist, says she’s not voting against Donald Trump but for Hillary Clinton.]

[(c. 96:00) Reverend Barber: There wouldn’t be a Donald Trump without a backlash against Obama. On the race question: People have suffered for rights, “died and bled”.]

[(c. 92:00) Next guests…Mitch Perry(sp?)]

[(c. 97:00) AG gives Thomas Frank an opportunity to respond, as she ‘knows he must leave the broadcast soon.]

[(c. 1:13:00) Greg Grandin…]

[(19:04 PST) (c. 2:04:00) Eddie Glaude: There are no surprises.] [This sounds like a repeat of what was said, or broadcast, earlier at 17:00 PDT, or earlier in the day, during the regular Democracy Now! broadcast.]

[Dr. Malveaux chimes in, largely agreeing and perpetuating this subtle Democratic Party apologia.]

[(19:08 PST) (c. 2:08:00) AG updates the two-party dictatorship ‘horse race’.]

[snip]

[(20:06 PST) Allan Nairn alleges the FBI may be swinging the vote in favour of Trump.]

[(20:08 PST) CBS News has just reported that Trump has won North Carolina.]

[(20:13 PST) (c. 3:13:00) Sheriff Joe Arpaio(sp?) has lost his election.]

[(20:13 PST) (c. 3:13:00) Next guest: ]

[(20:23 PST) Dr. Malveaux cites Dr. Ralph Nader]

[(20:23 PST) John Nichols cuts in.]

[(20:25 PST) Alan Nairn cuts in.]

[(20:26 PST) Amy Goodman cuts in, brings up other issues, including 84-year old Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is facing criminal charges and facing possible jail time.]

[(20:27 PST) Alan Nairn applauds justice being served against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who once called for prisoners caloric intake to be reduced, so that they wouldn’t have the energy to resist prison injustices.]

[c. 20:28 PST] Female pundit joins in.

[(20:40 PST) John Nichols retorts.]

[Professor Eddie Glaude, Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter, chimes in.]

[(20:43 PST) The other male guest chimes in.]

[(20:43 PST) Dr. Malveaux chimes in.]

[Back and forth chatter within a narrow two-party paradigm continues.]

[(20:44 PST) Dr. Malveaux invokes Russia fearmongering: ‘Maybe Trump has dealings with Russia.’]

[Back and forth chatter within a narrow two-party paradigm continues. No mention of the erosion of democracy, which only Dr. Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka’s Green Party campaign are countering.]

[(20:25 PST) Amy Goodman cuts in to the horse race banter to introduce Wayne Barrett(sp?). AG reports the corporate media has now reported Iowa coming in favour of Trump. Barett invokes Bruce Springsteen, a ‘man of the people’, who was ‘never asked’ to campaign for Hillary Clinton. Deluded liberals are reeling as Trump appears to be winning county after county and state after state on election day.]

[(20:48 PST) Amy Goodman cuts in to report that ‘Donald Trump has just won the battleground state of Georgia’.]

[(20:54 PST) Amy Goodman asks about Trump’s relationship with the FBI, including James Comey (b. 1960).]

[Democracy Now’s neoliberal rhetoric continues until the KPFA News Department cuts in, giving no word that the broadcast will not be returning to Democracy Now’s ‘expert’ panel.]

[snip]

[snip] (c. 3:59:59)

Learn more at PACIFICA RADIO.

FLASHPOINTS—[8 NOV 2016] [Broadcast summary from kpfa.org broadcast archive page: “Today on Flashpoints: Greg Palast joins us for an election daypost mortem on voter-intimidation. Also The Pipeline: How Marin and San Francisco Financial Firms Fuel the Fracking Boom. And we’ll see if we can get in a few listener phone calls.”]

[snip]

Learn more at FLASHPOINTS.

HARD KNOCK RADIO—[8 NOV 2016] [During the first half hour, Davey D spoke with a centrist liberal, whose remarks largely bolstered a Democrat apologist line of argumentation in the context of the 2016 November general election.]

[snip]

[snip] (c. 59:59)

Learn more at HARD KNOCK RADIO.

LETTERS AND POLITICS—[8 NOV 2016] [“Election Commentary with Richard Wolff” broadcast preview summary (accessed at 10:21 PDT on 8 NOV 2016): “with Dr. Richard Wolff, a renowned American Marxist economist, and Professor of Economics Emeritus, about the elections, the state of politics in the US and his ideas for rewriting the economic script in the country. His latest book is Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism.”]

[transcript pending]

[Messina called in during the call-in section and raised a bunch of issues, particularly the economic fact that we can end involuntary unemployment as we know it through an MMT-based job guarantee programme. MMT stands for modern money theory, which, as taught at heterodox economics departments throughout the United States, such as at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, shows us how we have monetary sovereignty, which allows us to use modern money for public purpose. Your author’s former professor, Dr. Stephanie Kelton, for example, shows us that all money exists as an IOU. This means, technically, taxes don’t pay for federal spending. They pay for state spending, but not federal spending. Dr. Richard Wolff agreed that everything was “correct”. But he didn’t really delve into, or engage with, the issue of the MMT-based job guarantee programme because it seems to clash with his particular variety of Marxian ideology.]

[snip] (c. 59:59)

Learn more at LETTERS AND POLITICS.

DEMOCRACY NOW!—[8 NOV 2016] [Listen to this radio broadcast here; or view the TV version here.]

[Democracy Now! featured coverage of the many local ballot measures throughout the nation, apparently the most in any general election in recent history. Many of the local ballot measures involve minimum wage laws, local revenue needs, medicinal (and so-called non-medicinal) cannabis sales, sin taxes, and other health care initiatives.]

[(c. 27:00) Inequality.org]

[(c. 30:00) Graham Nash music break/local station identifications and announcements]

[Rolling Stone’s Greg Palast (author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy) reported from the ‘battleground’ state of Ohio. Greg Palast has also reported for free speech KPFA Radio’s Flashpoints for its Election Protection series during the 2016 presidential election.]

[On charges of ‘double-voting’ found through ‘cross-checking’ of ballots with similar names as a pretense for purging voters of colour from voter rolls. At least one million voters are being deleted from the voter rolls; their ballots are being invalidated. Audit functions are being turned off in Ohio.]

[(c. 45:00) Amy Goodman dismisses Greg Palast]

[(c. 45:30) music break/local station identifications and announcements/on KPFA, Christina Aanestad appeals for listener donations]

[On upgrading our democratic process: abolishing the electoral college; National Popular Vote Interstate Compact; ranked-choice voting (or instant run-off voting); proportional representation.] (c. 51:00)

[Guest from Fair Vote.]

[(c. 55:00) Archive clip from Amy Goodman’s ambush interview of Bill Clinton on the political bankruptcy of the two-party system]

[snip] (c. 59:59)

Learn more at DEMOCRACY NOW!.

RISING UP—[7 NOV 2016]

[The first guest discussed post-election politics from a narrow two-party perspective, largely consonant with a particular vein of current political commentary, which focuses on a fear of a Trump presidency, which carries with it an implied suggestion to vote for Hillary Clinton, as a ‘logical’ reaction. Of course, this reasoning is only ‘logical’ if we buy into the premise, which argues that progressives must never break ranks with the Democratic Party, especially not during elections. They say, sometimes, that we can build political alternatives or third-party challenges after the election. But many of us have heard this for many elections, going back many years to at least the 1990s with Ralph Nader‘s earliest presidential candidacies.]

[The second guest Jennifer L. Clark discussed voter suppression, including in North Carolina, which has seen cases of voter suppression.]

[Host Sonali Kolhatkar takes a scant few minutes out of her hour-long daily broadcast to read a brief summary of the 2016 California Propositions, which are on the 2016 General Election ballot. Kolhatkar adopts a mealy-mouthed, know-nothing attitude towards the propositions, loathe to disclose any of her political preferences, insisting, “I cannot endorse any positions.” Well, why not? Is it because she’s not informed enough on any of the issues? Is it because her positions may contradict her ostensibly progressive political reputation? The history of journalism shows how, over time, media outlets have increasingly obfuscated their political preferences under a false premise of journalistic objectivity.]

Learn more at RISING UP WITH SONALI.

LA ONDA BAJITA—[4 NOV 2016] [snip]

[During the last 30 minutes or so of this two-hour broadcast, a special report discusses California Proposition 64, including Dennis Bernstein (host of Flashpoints), Sabrina Jacobs (host of Rude Awakening), and one of the founders of the Bank of North Dakota, if memory serves, on the role of public banking in removing the private bank roadblock to ending cannabis prohibition.]

[snip] (c. 1:59:59)

Learn more at LA ONDA BAJITA.

[Broadcast summary from KPFA archive page.]

AGAINST THE GRAIN—[2 NOV 2016] Matt Cherry of Death Penalty Focus on where capital punishment stands today and the potential impact of measures on next Tuesday’s ballot.

Learn more at AGAINST THE GRAIN.

[Broadcast summary from KPFA archive page. N.B.: Always listen/read critically. Talkies host and producer Kris Welch is a SaveKPFA partisan at KPFA, which leans in favour of the Democratic Party via a reform-the-party-from-within ideology.]

TALKIES—[2 NOV 2016] Election day is less than a week away—how can the top race be so close???? and other questions for progressives! PLUS: Tim DeChristopher in the role (missing) of the climate in political discourse.

With host Kris Welch.

Learn more at TALKIES.

RISING UP WITH SONALI—[2 NOV 2016] [election coverage details and link pending. See kpfa.org]

Learn more at RISING UP WITH SONALI.

[Broadcast summary from KPFA archive page.]

HARD KNOCK RADIO—[1 NOV 2016] California voters come Nov. 8 will have to sort through the longest list of statewide propositions imaginable. The confusing array of public policy choices includes, the future of the death penalty, a criminal sentence measure aimed at cutting state prison population by giving inmates a chance for earlier parole, a collection of new tough gun laws and a slew of other measures on the November Ballot.

On today’s show we provide listeners with a “voter guide” to help with the navigation of propositions/measures and local intitiatives, come this 2016 election. Our round-table of experts include invididuals committed to informing community and helping us all wade through the maze of police and legal jargon.

Guests:

Pastor Michael McBride, the National Director for Urban Strategies/LIVE FREE Campaign with the PICO National Network.
Aparnah Shah, the Executive Director for Mobilize the Immigrant Voice Action Fund and the Million Voters Project.
Adam Kruggel, Director of Organizing at PICO California.
Kimi Lee, the Director of Bay Rising (on state and local measures)
Chaney Turner, an Oakland native, activist, and entreprenuer.

Learn more at HARD KNOCK RADIO.

***

FOOTNOTES

[1] Green Voter Guide, A publication of the Green Party of Alameda County, an affiliate of the Green Party of California, dated November 8, 2016. This is a newspaper-like foldout pamphlett, which was mailed out some weeks ago. (It is also available online as a pdf document.)

The front page features the Table of Contents.

A sunflower graphic, with the word “vote” in the centre, is ringed by the following sociopolitical principles promoted by the Green Party:

community-based economics; social justice; ecological wisdom; feminism; grassroots democracy; global responsibility; respect for diversity; future focus; non-violence; decentralization.

The cover page also lists the following cities: Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City.

Readers may recall that we, at Lumpenproletariat, previously recommended the working classes in the United States vote for Senator Bernie Sanders for president, even going so far as to register as Democrat to back Sanders in the primary. But, since Senator Sanders decided that neoliberal Hillary Clinton is the best presidential candidate and quit on his own political movement, we’ve decided that Dr. Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka and the Green Party provide the clearest, most intelligent, most honest political campaign and platform. So, we’ve re-registered as Greens. Dr. Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka provide the best home for the precious efforts, political work, and civic engagement of the working classes toward socioeconomic justice and equanimity.

[2] As noted previously, we initially supported the Bernie Sanders campaign as the closest approximation to a socialist, or social democrat, presidency the United States could achieve in 2016, in stark contrast to the endless succession of neoliberal administrations under Democratic and Republican rule. We know that most liberals and many progressives are planning on voting for the neoliberal candidate Hillary Clinton as the lesser of two evils, or out of a fear-based decision, which reacts in fear of a Trump presidency. But we must bear in mind the many reasons there are to oppose the neoliberal politics of Hillary Clinton, starting with the fact that her politics are, well, neoliberal. With respect to the neoliberal politics of Hillary Clinton, which are likely to expand, should she win the presidency, we urge readers to review her record, as reflected in any number of snippets of the recent record:

2016 United States Presidential Debate #3, Censored Under the Auspices of the Commission On Presidential Debates; 19 OCT 2016.
America at War with Itself (2016) by Dr. Henry A. Giroux; 14 OCT 2016.
2016 United States Vice Presidential Election Debate; 4 OCT 2016.
Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich (2015) by Peter Schweizer; 1 AUG 2016.
“Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote” by Michelle Alexander; 27 JUL 2016.
Guns and Butter Presents Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, Global Warfare: Is the US/NATO Going To Attack Russia?; 15 JUN 2016.
Dr. Glenn Greenwald on Hillary Clinton’s Support for Brutal Dictators and More; 24 MAR 2016.
Activist and Indigenous Leader Nelson García Assassinated; 16 MAR 2016.
Activist Berta Cáceres Assassinated; 3 MAR 2016.
Hillary Clinton, US/NATO Imperialism, & the Lynching of Gaddafi; 3 MAR 2016.
Historical Archives: Third-Party Challenge to Unconstitutional Prop 14; 2 MAR 2016.
Black Agenda Report: On the USA’s Black Electorate, Circa 2016; 1 MAR 2016.
My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency (2015) by Doug Henwood; 29 FEB 2016.

[3] California Proposition 64 sounds good, superficially speaking. Progressives, as reflected by the Green Party’s endorsement for Prop. 64, favour legalisation and decriminalisation of medicinal and adult recreational use of cannabis. However, it seems there is some problematic fine print to Prop. 64, as some critics have decried an attached 15% sin tax. However, Prop. 64 doesn’t say anything about taxing changes. But, of course, localities are responding by running ballot propositions to impose sin taxes on top of existing sales taxes to all cannabis sales, medical and non-medical. Hayward Measure EE is one example. Also, others have complained that, while Prop. 64 makes adult consumption of cannabis legal, it worsens criminalisation of youth caught possessing or consuming cannabis. Also, there are questions of Monsanto patenting cannabis strains. A good legalisation proposition would certainly include language against such monopolistic corporate practices.

The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 64:

This isn’t the law we would have written; it’s complex and has all sorts of rules that might not be needed. But still: Legalizing pot is about, oh, 50 years overdue. The measure allows local communities to set regulations around sales, sets licensing standards, and will bring the state hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax money. Oh, and save millions in wasted law-enforcement time. We all know prohibition is silly and doesn’t work. Vote yes.

Full cannabis legalisation and decriminalisation all the way up to the federal level would certainly be beneficial for society, in terms of reversing mass incarceration by moving beyond paternalistic prohibition. Perhaps, that’s not an adequate basis for a yes vote on this particular cannabis legalisation state law. But it seems Prop. 64, in itself, is a beneficial law to pass. However, it leaves localities to pass onerous sin taxes. Here is a brief survey of positions on Prop. 64:

American Civil Liberties Union: YES
- “ACLU California Announces Support of Marijuana Legalization Ballot Meaure” by David Downs, East Bay Express, 15 JUN 2016.
- “The War on Marijuana in Black and White” by the American Civil Liberties Union, accessed 7 NOV 2016.
Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice: YES
California Democratic Party: YES
California League of Conservation Voters: YES
Courage Campaign: YES
Equality California: YES
Our Revolution: YES

Here are further resources, which discuss the pros and cons of Prop. 64:

Arguments for a No vote: NoOn64.net, accessed 4 NOV 2016.
Arguments for a Yes vote: YesOn64.org, accessed 4 NOV 2016.
Arguments for a No vote: Hard Knock Radio, 2 NOV 2016.
Arguments for a No vote: Hard Knock Radio, 1 NOV 2016.
Arguments for a Yes vote: “Prop. 64 Marijuana Legalization View from Chris Conrad”, The New Connection Magazine, 17 OCT 2016.

[4] See Dr. Ellen Brown for more information and analyses, which make very compelling arguments against California Proposition 51 from a public banking perspective:

“Prop. 51 Versus a State-Owned Bank: How California Can Save $10 Billion on a $9 Billion Loan” by Ellen Brown, Huffington Post, 19 OCT 2016.

HUFFINGTON POST—[19 OCT 2016] School districts are notoriously short of funding – so short that some California districts have succumbed to Capital Appreciation Bonds that will cost taxpayers as much is 10 to 15 times principal by the time they are paid off. By comparison, California’s Prop. 51, the school bond proposal currently on the ballot, looks like a good deal. It would allow the state to borrow an additional $9 billion for educational purposes by selling general obligation bonds to investors at an assumed interest rate of 5%, with the bonds issued over a five-year period and repaid over 30 years. $9 billion × 5% × 35 equals $15.75 billion in interest – nearly twice principal, but not too bad compared to the Capital Appreciation Bond figures.

However, there is a much cheaper way to fund this $9 billion school debt. By borrowing from its own state-chartered, state-owned bank, the state could save over $10 billion – on a $9 billion loan. Here is how.

[snip]

Learn more at HUFFINGTON POST.

The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 51:

The need for funding for K-12 and community college facilities is dire. There’s no way to argue against $9 billion in state bonds to help local communities upgrade ebonds come out of the overall general fund, in this case to the tune of $500 million a year, and while everyone in Sacramento wants to borrow money for good causes, it’s hard to find many who want to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for it. Still: Vote yes.

[5] The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 52:

Complex, technical, but the bottom line is that private hospitals would pay a fee to pay for uninsured and Medi-Cal patients. If you think that private hospitals in CA are just charities, go check out the financials of the likes of Kaiser and Sutter Health. They make billions. Vote yes.

[6] The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following compelling argument against Prop. 53:

This is part of the same agenda that brought us Prop. 13. The anti-tax folks want to make it harder for government to raise money. Revenue bonds aren’t backed by taxpayers; they’re backed by, say, the income from an airport or a public-power agency. The reality is that this is funded by a rich Central Valley farmer who doesn’t like the governor’s plans for new water tunnels or high-speed rail. We don’t like the tunnels, either; we do like the trains. Either way, this is a really stupid way to make policy. Vote no.

[7] The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following compelling argument in favour of Prop. 54:

This is going to pass with about 70 percent of the vote, and it should. The state Legislature has a habit of introducing new elements to bills at the last minute, just before a session ends. Rotten special-interest riders hike onto unrelated bills; legislator voting on hundreds of measures don’t get a chance to scrutinize what’s going on. Prop. 54 also mandates that all sessions of the Legislature and its committees be streamed on video. Vote yes.

[8] The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following compelling argument in favour of Prop. 55:

In 2009, in the middle of the Great Recession, the state imposed a modest increase in taxes on the most wealthy, people with incomes of more than $250,000 a year. That tax is set to expire in 2018. The rich are even richer, the needs are even more serious, and drop of as much as $9 billion in state revenue would be devastating. Yes, yes, yes.

[9] The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 56:

The state’s tobacco tax is only 87 cents a pack. Prop. 56 raises it by $2. The evidence is pretty clear that smoking costs the state billions in health-care costs, and that higher taxes reduce use (particularly among young people). Vote yes.

[10] The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 57 :

Prop. 57 – Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature measure for this fall — is a significant step toward reforming the state’s crazy, racist, inhumane criminal justice system. The measure would allow the possibility of parole for some 30,000 nonviolent felons who are now stuck in long sentences. It would also require a judge – not just a prosecutor – to decide whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult. And it allows prison authorities to allow inmates “good time” – that is, a reduction in their sentences for good behavior. In reality, only a few thousand would likely be set free any single year, and while this won’t solve the prison overcrowding problem, it will help. Vote yes.

[11] The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 58:

The description of this measure is a bit confusing, but its impact would be simple: It would guarantee that public schools in California have the right to use bilingual or immersion education as part of the curriculum for English learners. It would overturn outdated and ineffective “English only” rules. Every credible education group supports it. Vote yes.

[12] The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 59:

Prop. 59 is one of those policy statements that we often see on the ballot in San Francisco but not so much at the state level. It has no immediate impact; it doesn’t change any laws. But it would put California voters on record urging Congress and the courts to overturn the Citizens United decision that allows for unregulated campaign spending by corporations. The momentum to overturn that decision is growing – and for California, the nation’s largest state, to take a strong position would send a national signal. Vote Yes.

[13] The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument against Prop. 60:

This is one of those measures that sounds sensible – until you stop and think about it. Prop. 60 would mandate that adult film performers use condoms “during filming of sexual intercourse.” Sure, public health and workplace safety, right?

Except that the performers themselves are opposed. Public health organizations are opposed. Because this makes no sense and shows no comprehension of how the porn industry actually works these days.

There are still big outfits like Vivid Studios and Kink.com, but a lot of the industry is now pretty homegrown – performers make and produce their own videos. Under Prop. 60, if they aren’t using condoms, they could be sued anytime. Their real names and addresses could become public.

And it seems to be a solution in search of a problem: There isn’t one documented case of a person getting infected with HIV on a porn set in California. Performers are tested regularly.

There’s no question that the state regulators who handle workplace safety – that is, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration – is behind the times on creating rules for porn studios. There may be instances when a performer who wants to use a condom is told not to – and that’s a problem. But Cal-OSHA should be writing the regulations – and this measure will likely either drive porn films out of state or underground, in either case encouraging less, not more, regulation. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are against this. So are we.

[14] The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 61:

This one also sounds confusing and bureaucratic. What it really does is mandate that the state pay no more for prescription drugs than the federal Veterans Administration. It’s part of a national movement that says Big Pharma charges too much for medicine. The state has bargaining power, the VA generally gets way better deals than the state does, and the California Nurses Association supports it. So does Bernie Sanders. That’s good enough for us.

[15] The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 62:

YES, YES, YES

The death penalty is barbaric. Most civilized countries have long since abolished it. It’s also hugely expensive and doesn’t work.

Prop. 62 is the latest effort to get California out of the state-sponsored killing business. The last time around, the voters narrowly rejected a death-penalty repeal, but the vast cost (hundreds of millions of dollars), the growing evidence that innocent people have been sentenced to death, and the understanding that the death penalty has no deterrent effect, is imposed overwhelmingly on poor people of color, many of them with serious mental-health issues, is starting to turn the public around. This should be the year. Please: Vote yes.

[16] The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 63:

Yes

California has better gun laws than a lot of states, and this will make the rules even tighter by focusing on two problems: It’s still relatively easy to buy ammunition (even over the Internet) and it’s hard to get guns out of the hands of people who are legally banned from owning them (felons and people convicted of domestic violence). Yes, Prop. 63 is a vehicle for Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who proposed it, to get his name out on a hot issue while he prepares his campaign for governor. But that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea.

The measure would require background checks for people who buy ammo and create a court process for removing guns from people who aren’t supposed to have them. Vote yes.

[17] The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument against Prop. 65:

The plastic-bag industry, which sells something like a billion bags a year in the state, put this on the ballot to confuse voters and prevent the kind of real regulation that is in Prop. 67. It’s not an environmental issue; the real environmental groups are all against it. Vote no.

[18] The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument against Prop. 66:

NO, NO, NO

Death penalty enforcement

This one’s the opposite of Prop. 62. It’s devious and potentially terrible. The measure would seek to speed up the death-penalty process by eliminating Constitutional protections and imposing unrealistic timelines on prosecutors, defense lawyers, and the courts. It’s impossible for this to work without seriously risking the execution of an innocent person. It would overload local courts with work they aren’t prepared or funded to do. It’s a cynical attempt by the death-penalty lobby to confuse voters. No, No, No.

[19] The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour Prop. 67:

YES

San Francisco phased out single-use plastic bags years ago – and we seem to be doing fine. The idea of reusable shopping bags has caught on, the economic and consumer consequences are zero – and the environmental impacts of getting rid of a few billion plastic bags, which don’t decompose, aren’t recyclable, and kill fish and wildlife are huge. Vote yes.

[20] GONZO: I posted the following message when I pledged to vote for Dr. Jill Stein on her website:

[I pledged earlier and was then prompted through a questionnaire about volunteering. My computer shut down, so I’m starting over and apologise for any redundancies.]

Vote Stein/Baraka 2016! Vote Green Party!

Also, let’s get the word out about MMT to Dr. Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka. MMT stands for modern money theory, or modern monetary theory. It is taught at universities with heterodox economics departments, such as the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC), where I earned a degree in economics. I studied under Dr. Stephanie Kelton, among other heterodox economists, who teach us how our modern monetary system works in the United States. Long story short, given MMT, we can end involuntary unemployment as we know it with a Job Guarantee Programme. And it’s important to understand, as MMT shows us, that taxes don’t pay for anything. So, government spending, such as for a job guarantee programme isn’t paid by taxes. (See MMT on monetary sovereignty, sectoral balances, trade balances, national budget deficits and surpluses, and fiscal budgets.)

Dr. Stephanie Kelton was the chair of the UMKC economics department up until she was hired by Bernie Sanders to work as Chief Economist for the Senate Minority Budget Committee. When Bernie Sanders ran during the 2016 Democratic Primary, Dr. Kelton joined the Bernie Sanders campaign trail, alongside UMKC’s Dr. William K. Black (professor of Law & Economics). Unfortunately, Bernie Sanders failed to tell the American people about an MMT-based Job Guarantee Programme and how we can end involuntary unemployment as we know it.

Imagine that? Let’s work on communicating this to Dr. Jill Stein. That way, she will no longer misunderstand how taxes work or how our monetary system works. And, then, she will be able to inform the American people that we can have a permanent and sustainable national job guarantee programme, which can get the economy going and provide jobs whenever the economy suffers its cyclical capitalist crises.

It’s unfortunate whenever we hear our brightest minds lacking crucial knowledge about economics and how our economy really works. I’ve been trying to get the word out about MMT and the Job Guarantee Programme since I graduated. But it’s not easy. We need all the help we can get spreading the word.

Whether you agree or not with the political decision for the government to create, implement, and maintain a Job Guarantee Programme modelled after the New Deal jobs programmes, there is no disagreement about the economic feasibility and soundness of the government’s ability to fund such a programme without imposing any tax burden on working people. One can argue that they refuse to guarantee the American people jobs. But one cannot argue that it the government cannot afford it or that such government spending will be inflationary.

As a former economics professor of mine, Dr. L.R. Wray, a leading expert on MMT and monetary theory and policy, would say: It is only the lack of political will, which prevents us from ending involuntary unemployment.

[21] From the 2016 Green Voter Guide (Federal Offices, page 1):

U.S. President and Vice President

Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka

“Stein is not just up against the Democratic and Republican nominees. She is up against a rigid two-party system that erects high barriers to those who seek to open up the process. It is uncommon for independent and third-party candidates to get over and around those barriers. But this is an uncommon year in American politics.” — John Nichols, August 19, 2016, The Nation, “Jill Stein Should Be Part of a 4-Way Presidential Debate”

In the 2016 presidential election, the growing corruption of U.S. electoral politics and the disintegration of what’s left of our democracy is on display: the resignations of numerous campaign and party officials from scandalous ethical violations exposed in leaked emails; the swirling controversy surrounding the foundations of the corporate candidates-on the one hand, allegations of pay-to-play favoritism, and on the other, outright illegal activity; a meeting between a former president and the Attorney General on an airport tarmac, followed by a non-indictment recommendation from the FBI chief; a corporate media telling us that our only choices are a loud-mouthed carnival barker whose racism, misogyny and bigotry have made white supremacy mainstream, or a deeply flawed, entrenched politician whose record offers us more war and more Wall Street.

Against this backdrop, when Jill Stein appears on the news in her lavender blazer, energetic, optimistic and wise, to talk about a bright possible future where war and weapons are transformed into clean energy jobs and free education, the relief and excitement many Americans feel is palpable and real. By August her poll numbers were up to 4 percent nationwide and over 10 percent in California among voters under 30 (higher than Trump’s numbers). As a mother, Harvard-educated physician, and longtime teacher of internal medicine, Stein has led initiatives promoting healthy communities, local green economies, and the revitalization of democracy—championing issues such as campaign finance reform, green jobs, racially-just redistricting, and the cleanup of incinerators, coal plants, and toxics.

In August, Stein chose longtime human rights activist Ajamu Baraka as her running mate. Baraka has served on the boards of Amnesty International, Center for Constitutional Rights, Africa Action, and is currently an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. Following a CNN Town Hall appearance together, Stein / Baraka received significant media coverage. Among others, the LA Times and Fresno Bee even called for the inclusion of Stein (and Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson) in the presidential debates. In September 2016, Stein and Baraka were arrested after protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation.

Stein-Baraka are picking up the mantle of the fight against wealth inequality after the historic Bernie Sanders Democratic primary campaign, which represented the largest public outcry on the declining standard of living in America since the worldwide Occupy Movement (“We Are the 99 percent”) in 2011. While Bernie’s pre-convention endorsement of Clinton—despite months of promising a contested convention—avoided the police violence in the streets which ultimately decimated Occupy in the U.S., many Bernie supporters, unable to stomach the corrupt rightwing politics of Clinton, proceeded to “DemExit”—de-registering Democrat en masse to join the Green Party. Stein helped the transition by compassionately vocalizing the experiences of Bernie’s supporters, tweeting, “Bernie hearts are breaking right now,” and joining them in the street demonstrations outside the DNC in Philadelphia. In an op-ed for The Hill, Stein made her key point, “The consistent efforts of the Democratic Party to minimize, sideline, and sabotage the Sanders campaign are a wakeup call that we can’t have a revolutionary campaign inside a counterrevolutionary party.”

Sanders’ willingness to endorse Clinton, following through on statements he made earlier in his campaign, was nonetheless a shock to some Bernie supporters. They had directly experienced election theft, debate falsehoods by Clinton, DNC undermining of Bernie’s campaign, and SuperPAC undermining of social media accounts. Clinton is a candidate so embraced by the establishment that, following a year long investigation, FBI director Comey took the unprecedented step of intervening in what would normally have been a criminal decision by the Justice Department, and recommended against indictment after laying out a powerful case to Congress for indictment based on Clinton’s violations of public transparency and national security laws. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who clandestinely met with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in the days before Comey’s testimony to Congress, was thus spared from having to follow through with a prosecution.

As the bizarre series of events of the 2016 presidential election continue to unfold, corruption by the two corporate-funded party officeholders and candidates is reaching record levels. Several Clinton superdelegates at the July DNC, for example, were under federal investigation when they voted to nominate her, including Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Florida Representative Corrine Brown. (Superdelegate New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was already sentenced to prison in January for 12 years on federal corruption charges.)

The establishment is so desperate to force Clinton through the installation process, no matter how mistrusted or disliked she is, that it is willing to expose its own extreme media bias, hijack legal criminal proceedings, neglect clear cases of election fraud, and even call her primary nomination before the convention had even started. For these reasons, the likelihood of a Trump presidency is small. Critique of Trump’s positions is illogical, since they can change fully to the opposite position within weeks or months.

As the Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka campaign gains access in more states and their poll numbers rise, we can continue give a voice to the public outcry against corruption, wealth inequality, racism, the climate crisis and wars – vote Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka, for a peaceful and just future.

[22] From the 2016 Green Voter Guide (page 3, 4):

U.S. Senator

No Endorsement

Our world is in crisis because an economic system based on ecocide—capitalism—is globally dominant and lives through constant economic expansion, threatening the entire web of life by gradually but inexorably destroying a stable biosphere, climate system and our oceans. Time is short to avoid global catastrophe and turn this system around, and generous doses of both farsighted leadership and mass participation will be needed. Alas, no such leaders can be found among the two status quo candidates on the ballot for U.S. Senate this year.

Due to the unfair “top two” electoral system currently in use in California (see box), there are only two Democrats on the ballot. Both Loretta Sanchez and Kamala Harris are establishment Democrats, but represent respectively the “moderate” and “progressive” wings of the dominant plutocracy. Sanchez has been in the U.S. House of Representatives representing two Orange County districts since the late 1990s. A former Republican (until 1992), she identifies as a “Blue Dog” Democrat, the openly pro-capitalist, fiscally conservative, pro-war (“defense”) faction of the Democratic Party. She makes the typical argument that since her parents were immigrants, she will be on the side of the excluded and oppressed. Her entire political and ideological orientation and concrete votes while in office completely refute this ploy to ensnare the unwary voter.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris is the favored candidate of the plutocracy in this race and is very likely to win. She has raised by far the most money, and received the most attention (mainly favorable) from the establishment media. Harris’s career in politics began when she became a protégé of state kingpin Willie Brown in the early 1990s. Brown and other members of the plutocratic wing of the California Democratic Party (such as the billionaire Feinstein and the multimillionaire Pelosi) helped Harris with jobs, endorsements and election fundraising. She was then elected state Attorney General. Despite the culture of frugality stressed by Governor Jerry Brown, Harris’s rapid and easy rise to prominence and power has apparently gone to her head and detailed reports of her “diva lifestyle” and demands for “a life of luxury” have surfaced. One former aide stated that she treats her campaign funds like a personal checking account. An examination of her campaign spending reports shows this to be true.

Harris’s political orientation can be summed up by her endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president: “I’m excited to stand with Hillary Clinton… I have a deep admiration for her.” The issues she is running on reflect the usual “progressive” Democrat approach to politics: carefully manage public anger by offering hope of change while maintaining the status quo with minor alterations. During election time they sound more progressive, but totally cave in to corporate and plutocratic interests as soon as the election is over. Even the soon to be betrayed promises are inadequate. The specifics offered by Harris to deal with the ecological crisis, for example, focus on capitalist market based non- solutions like a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade market for carbon pollution. This lets the high consuming plutocrats (like her friend Feinstein who has seven houses all over the country and flies around on her own private jet to visit them) off the hook; they can consume as much as they want while the rank and file are rationed through the market. Moreover, environmental issues are, in Harris’s program, combined with something not possible: “sustainable economic growth.” The need for de-growth, for a crash program in agroecological agriculture, immediately ending coal mining and fracking, as well as an immediate end to fossil fuel subsidies for big oil, gas and coal are left unmentioned. The necessity of ending the system of grow-or-die capitalism, which must not be continued on our finite planet, is also left out of the Harris program. Harris, like Sanchez, is a facilitator of a higher immorality, ignoring the real issues facing the people and the planet.

As Albert Einstein once stated, “We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.” Clearly, these two candidates do not offer such thinking.

U.S. House of Representatives, District 13

No Endorsement

As of June 30, Democratic Party incumbent Barbara Lee raised $851,066 for her re-election. Keeping in mind that she has never won an election with less than 80 percent of the vote and that her Republican opponent has only raised $4,150, the need for such a campaign war chest becomes a curious question. (Her opponent, Suzanne Caro, has given $1,100 to her own campaign, Barbara Lee hasn’t given one thin dime to her own re-election!)

Her biggest contributor is an Emeryville business man named John Gooding. He runs several consulting firms, including the Milo Group, Quadric Group and the Emeryville Education Fund, and he is a member of the board of the Emeryville Chamber of Commerce. He may be best known to the working class for his opposition to the 2005 Measure C in Emeryville, which was a successful campaign to elevate the wages of hotel workers to a living wage. He claimed that raising the wages of workers would cause the hospitality industry to leave Emeryville. Despite his seeming interest in educating children, he donated money to Republican Governor Pete Wilson and his fight to pass Proposition 187 in 1994, an initiative to deny education to children of undocumented immigrants.

A review of Representative Lee’s donation list includes many corporations associated with the Military Industrial Complex, including Vital Systems (from an individual associated with the company), Lockheed Martin, and Microsoft.

Also donating to Lee are DTE Energy PAC, a company associated with gas piping (the fracking industry) and nuclear power, $3,000; Duke Energy of North Carolina, big into coal and nuclear and with no facilities on the West Coast, $2,500; Dickerson Employee Benefits, a health insurance company ($9,800 from Jean and Carl Dickerson of Pasadena, CA); and Gilead Sciences, a pharmaceutical firm formerly run by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, $5,000. Not to mention: McDonalds PAC $5,000, PG&E PAC $4,000, Clorox PAC $3,000, Bayer PAC $2,500, National Beer Wholesalers PAC $2,500, National Football League PAC $1,500, Berkshire Hathaway PAC $1,000, and State Farm Insurance PAC $1,000.

Of the $851,066 she has raised, (not including the $706,394 she has spent on “Operating Expenses,” which is mostly throwing parties to raise money to throw parties to raise money, including one in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, over 3,000 miles from her district). Is all of this “money laundering” and acceptance of corporate money really what you want from a so-called “progressive” member of Congress? Do you really want to vote for someone who doesn’t even believe in themselves enough to donate to their own campaign?

Lee’s challenger is Piedmont realtor Sue Caro, vice chair of the Alameda County Republican Party, who somehow thinks Lee is a “socialist.” Yikes! It looks like we need to go “back to the drawing board” and find a strong, non-corporate progressive candidate to represent us in Congress!

State Senate, District 9

No Endorsement

We favor Sandre Swanson as the better of the only two choices. It is against our policy to endorse Democrats in “partisan” races, even if your only choices are Democrats. Whoever wins will be one of the most progressive senators in the state. See their responses to our questionnaire.

Before the Assembly, Sandre Swanson had 30 years of political experience, working for Congress persons Ron Dellums and then Barbara Lee. He is committed to growing the middle class and sustainable jobs, at-risk youth, the victims of human trafficking, worker rights, and a “state budget that is not balanced on the backs of the most vulnerable and voiceless in our society.” He supports tuition-free higher education starting with the community colleges.

As evidence of a principled progressive voice, he cites his “no” votes that eliminated the “Healthy Families Program”, moving 740,000 poor children to Medi-Cal, and on measures that would undermine collective bargaining rights. He also voted his “conscience…refusing to support a spending cap ‘rainy day fund’ during the recession,” a vote that cost him the chairmanship of the Labor Committee. In 2010, he joined with Greens in speaking out forcefully against the “Top Two Primary” proposition.

His endorsers include Loni Hancock, Barbara Lee, Berkeley City Councilmembers Anderson, Arreguin and Worthington, the Wellstone Renewal Democratic Club and LOTS of labor unions. If elected, he will be the only African American from northern California to serve in the State Senate in more than two decades.

Nancy Skinner served on the Berkeley City Council and the East Bay Regional Parks District Board. She is running to “deliver on the progressive policies that were my hallmark in the Assembly.” She cites legislation that greatly expands rooftop solar, gun violence prevention, fighting corporate tax loopholes and bringing in $1 billion in new sales tax revenue, initiating higher income taxes on the super-rich, and removing dangerous chemicals from building materials. She takes credit for the largest increase in funding for childcare and preschool in over a decade and substantial budget increases for CSU and UC. She believes that “advancing the progressive agenda requires skilled legislators to craft legislation, forge coalitions, and tenaciously push legislation through to the Governor’s desk.” Her endorsers include most of the mayors in District 9, the Sierra Club, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, a few unions, and a huge list of elected officials. Currently only 12 of the 40 State Senators are women.

State Assembly, District 15

No Endorsement

The Assembly District 15 covers the area from North Oakland through Berkeley, Richmond, and San Pablo, to Pinole.

Incumbent Tony Thurmond’s answers to our detailed and concrete questionnaire were mostly vague generalities. He referred several times to his website, but the website is not very concrete or complete. The only question that he fully answered was his list of endorsements (primarily the Democratic machine). His votes have been standard Democratic votes.

The most detailed answer Thurmond gave was to a specific question about how he plans to address budget deficits: “I believe we need to bring more fairness to our tax system, including extending Prop. 30, reforming the 2/3 requirement for passage of tax measures and reforming Prop. 13.” This is a step in the right direction, but it does not address exactly how he would counter the powerful forces which support the corporate property tax status quo. In some cases, Thurmond’s questionnaire answer was deliberately misleading. For example, when asked “What must a constituent do in order to meet with you?”, he answered “All a constituent needs to do is contact one of my offices to set up an appointment.” In fact, that appointment will be with one of Thurmond’s staffers. Thurmond himself does not meet with constituents. He rarely holds Town Hall meetings. He does make campaign appearances, but he appears slick and insincere. His behavior as a new member of the Assembly has occasionally been an embarrassment (see indybay.org).

Thurmond’s first term was a disappointment, since he was put into office in 2014 by progressives and supported by the Greens. It seems possible, but unlikely, that he’ll improve as he gains more experience.

His only challenger is UC Berkeley College Republicans’ Claire Chiara, who was polite but declined to answer our questionnaire.

We very badly need to put a viable progressive into this important seat.

State Assembly, District 18

No Endorsement

The Democratic Party incumbent, Rob Bonta, represents all of Oakland except for the northern portion, plus Alameda and most of San Leandro.

Bonta is becoming more progressive with time. We appreciate that he returned the Green Party questionnaire, which he did not do for the last election. It’s true that his thoughtful, concrete answers told us about specifically-chosen legislative events that may have made him appear more progressive than he actually is. But he had lots of good things to say this time, in essentially every category. In person he appears to be genuinely engaged and concerned.

For example, in 2013 we know that Bonta had voted FOR fracking (against the AB 1323 moratorium). But in 2014 and 2015, he changed his position and voted against fracking, e.g. by supporting SB 4 (fracking regulations, which was an easy vote for him). Notably, he also supported the failed AB 669 (to protect water from fracking, which was a more difficult vote for him).

In 2015 Bonta supported the unpopular mandatory vaccination act SB 277 — which is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry — after accepting tens of thousands of dollars in donations from them. But Bonta may have learned from this experience, because in his 2016 questionnaire he says he “stood up against the pharmaceutical industry, including by supporting AB 463, the pharmaceutical Cost Transparency Act of 2016, which would have required disclosure of additional information [on expensive pharmaceutical treatments].”

Bonta claims “I have not taken any donations from Big Oil, Big Tobacco, or WalMart,” which is great. Of course, that still leaves a lot of corporations from whom he has accepted money.

Bonta’s only opponent is Roseann Slonsky-Breault, who is an officer of the California Federation of Republican Women. We appreciate her responding to some of the Green Party questions, but her non-specific, polemical responses are far more conservative than Bonta’s. “We have too many unnecessary entitlement programs.” “I oppose single payer health care. The free market system allows patients to work together with their own doctors to have the best health care.” “We need less regulation for businesses.” “Raising the minimum wage . . . hurts the young and less educated workers, it becomes even more difficult for them to find jobs.”

The Assembly District 18 has lots of great progressive people in it. We need to keep encouraging Bonta—or whoever holds this seat—to accurately represent and lead their constituency.

From the 2016 Green Voter Guide (page 2):

Taxes, Bonds, Fiscal Responsibility and the Green Party

The Green Party’s commitment to being fiscally responsible is as important as our commitment to being environmentally and socially responsible. Given these values, we often endorse bonds and taxes with reservations. Why? Because structural inequities in the tax system make responsible and progressive financing impossible.

Our budget problems took a turn for the worse in 1978 when California’s most famous proposition, Prop 13, was approved by voters. Fourteen years later, in 1992, the Green Party achieved ballot status in California and we’ve been fighting for a fairer tax system ever since.

Voters overwhelmingly approved Prop 13 to keep people, especially seniors on fixed incomes, from losing their homes due to escalating property taxes. Other less-understood parts of Prop 13, however, have increasingly damaged California’s legacy of great schools, parks, highways, health care and quality of life.

Prop 13 flattened property taxes and prohibited imposition of any new “ad valorem” (according to value) taxes on real property. Prop 13 also requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature to increase state taxes. This super-majority is a steep hurdle to jump, especially when slightly more than 1/3 of our legislators have pledged to vote against any and all taxes.

Taxes are now less progressive and more regressive, taxing the poor more than the rich. California can keep the good and fix the bad in Prop 13, but neither majority Democrats nor minority Republicans use their power to promote real solutions.

Bonds have been sold to voters as “no new taxes” rather than “spend now and make kids pay later, with interest.” Bonds meanwhile enrich and give tax breaks to wealthy investors, and encourage scams by casino capitalists on Wall Street. Super-rich individuals and corporations avoid paying taxes, and instead loan money to the government in the form of bonds, and get even richer from the interest. Implementing a publicly-owned State Bank is one way California could use its own capital to fund public projects, and invest the interest savings back into California.

Property taxes before Prop 13 came primarily from commercial properties, and now primarily from homes. Homes are reassessed upon sale, whereas tax loopholes allow corporate properties to escape reassessment.

Parcel taxes are often the same for large properties and small condos. For some voters parcel taxes are outstripping their basic property taxes.

Sales taxes have been relied upon for balancing budgets, and weigh heavily given that, as updated annually by the California Budget Project, when looking at family income, the poorest 20 percent pay more of their income in state and local taxes than the richest 1 percent. This continues to be the case even after Proposition 30’s tax rate Increases. Those who average $13,000 pay 10.6 percent and those who average $1.6 million pay 8.8 percent.

With Reservations we endorse funding when needed for vital services, and at the same time we educate and organize for better ways of raising revenue in the future.

[23] Green Party position, from the 2016 Green Voter Guide (page 1):

Proposition 64 – YES

Marijuana Legalization

Prop. 64, the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative would legalize marijuana and hemp under state law and enact certain sales and cultivation taxes.

The time has finally come for cannabis to come “out of the shadows” and into the daylight in California, as it has now in four other western states (WA, CO, OR, AK). It is pretty clear where the benefits are: less money to crime syndicates both domestically and in Mexico; fewer people put in jail for trivial issues that do not affect actual crime on others; and more revenue for the state to educate about drug issues, clean the environment, and help law enforcement, among other things. Most reasonable people have known for a long time that legalization is not only a rational path to drug policy for multiple reasons, but is virtually inevitable, eventually, across the country.

This proposition is almost sure to pass this time, according to public polling, and has only limited opposition. Some opposition comes from certain sectors of law enforcement that have habitually opposed any sort of legalization; some from large scale growers that don’t want their entrenched profits to drop (though they always masquerade their arguments in terms of other issues); and some opposition comes from “reasonable” concerns about public health: the ability of the drug to push certain predisposed young people over the edge into schizophrenia (an issue which needs more study).

At this point, however, going the “prohibition” route to controlling cannabis consumption is not helping these vulnerable people, nor anyone else. Anyone can get it without much difficulty in the state (and country), and what is needed is to integrate it into our existing public health system, instead of seeing it as “demon weed” outside the scope of civilized society when everyone is aware that, in fact, it’s all around us.

We give a strong YES to Prop. 64.

[24] Voter education text on ranked-choice voting, from the 2016 Green Voter Guide (page 8) [Some cities within Alameda County have elected to begin using ranked-choice voting in various elections.]:

Understanding and using “Ranked Choice Voting” (RCV)

RCV allows you to ‘rank’ three candidates, rather than being forced to choose just one. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is more descriptive: when a candidate is eliminated, it’s as if there is a run-off between the remaining candidates.

During the first round of IRV, only the votes ranked first are counted. If nobody has a majority of votes, an elimination process begins. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. If it’s your candidate, your next choice, if any, transfers up. This continues until someone has a majority. Your highest remaining candidate remains YOUR ONLY VOTE until that candidate is eliminated, or wins. Your other choices DO NOT MATTER and are not counted unless your higher ranked choices are eliminated. If you choose to vote for only one or two candidates, if they are eliminated, then your ballot is ‘exhausted’. It’s as if you chose not to vote in the remaining run-offs.

IRV is great because you can rank ‘sincere choices‘—candidates you actually like—without ‘throwing away’ your vote.

IRV invites strategies like:

¤ Only ranking sincere choices, people with politics or ideals you believe in, even if they can’t win.

¤ Saving the last vote for the ‘least disliked frontrunner’ in case your sincere choices are eliminated. Use your last place vote strategically. It may be the only vote that counts.

¤ Make a statement by ranking a candidate you want to appear in the vote counting until they are eliminated, even if they’re not a sincere choice, as long as they have no chance of winning.

Regardless of your strategy, NEVER rank a frontrunner you don’t want to see elected. Your vote could put them over the top.”

From the 2016 Green Voter Guide (page 3):

Green Party Disenfranchised by Unfair Top Two System

Currently in California, most state contested political offices are filled through the “top two” primary voting system. This reduces democracy by limiting voter choice. In this year’s U.S. Senate campaign there are only two Democrats on the ballot, no other political party candidates are included. The result is low participation in the November general election when voter interest is highest. This system also increases the role of big money interests in the June primary, since candidates need more money to distinguish themselves from others in what is often a long list of candidates. The Green Party favors fairer voting system like Ranked Choice Voting and Proportional Representation, both used in many nations to better represent the people’s wishes. PR is used in over 90 nations worldwide.

[25] From the 2016 Green Voter Guide (page 10):

[Lumpenproletariat urges a NO vote on Hayward Measure EE. Why discriminate against one consumer group? Why not put a ‘sin tax’ on alcohol? Sales taxes are regressive. ‘Sin taxes‘, by definition, are also discriminatory.]

Hayward Measure EE – YES

Cannabis Tax Authorization

Measure EE is similar to other measures on the ballot in November to place additional city taxes (not exceeding 15 percent) on the sale of medical and recreational cannabis— if the sale of cannabis is approved by California voters through the passage of Prop. 64. It seems a pretty clever way to prepare to fill city coffers (which have been running dry in recent years) if Prop. 64 does pass. Measure EE requires a simple majority of 50 percent plus 1 to pass.

Measure EE seems to face no significant opposition by local leaders or other groups. Indeed, most of the Hayward City Council has explicitly endorsed the measure. We think this was a visionary move by the city to prepare for the likely passage of Prop. 64, and see no reason to oppose this measure. We recommend a YES vote.

***

[Ranked-Choice Vote Ballot image by source, used via fair use.]

[2 NOV 2016]

[Last modified 00:17 PST 9 NOV 2016]

Save

Rethinking Marxism: An Ethics for Marxism: Spinoza On Fortitude by Dr. Ted Stolze

26 Mon Sep 2016

Posted by ztnh in Anti-Capitalism, collective bargaining, Critical Theory, Marxian Theory (Marxism), Philosophy, Political Economy, Political Science, Presidential Election 2016

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

affect, Against the Grain, Althusserian Marxism, Antonio "Toni" Negri (b. 1933), Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), Becoming Marxist: Studies In Philosophy Struggle and Endurance, Cerritos College (Norwalk CA), De Witt Family (13th-17th centuries), Donald Trump, Dr. Karl Marx (1818-1883), Dr. Stephanie Kelton, Dr. Ted Stolze, Epictetus (55-135), Frankfurt School, grit, Hal Draper (1914-1990), Hillary Rodham Clinton, House of Orange monarchy, KPFA, Marcus Aurelius (121-180), Marxian economics, MMT, Modern Monetary Theory, Modern Money Theory, Norman Geras (1943-2013), Pacifica Radio Network, Rethinking Marxism, Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919), Senator Bernie Sanders, Stoicism, transcript

Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677)

LUMPENPROLETARIAT—On today’s edition of Against the Grain, Professor Ted Stolze (Cerritos College) discussed a new article he’s published at Rethinking Marxism, which ranges from the philosophical works of Baruch Spinoza to Dr. Karl Marx. The article is entitled “An Ethics for Marxism: Spinoza On Fortitude“. Listen (and/or download) here. [1]

Messina

***

[Working draft transcript of actual radio broadcast by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and Against the Grain.]

Dr. Karl Marx (1818-1883)

AGAINST THE GRAIN—[26 SEP 2016] [Station identification by Erica Bridgeman(sp?): 94.1 KPFA and 89.3 KPFB, in Berkeley; 88.1 KFCF, in Fresno; 97.5 K248BR, in Santa Cruz; and online at kpfa.org. The time is twelve, noon. Stay tuned, next, for Against the Grain.] [theme music]

“Today, on Against the Grain, what sustains radical politics? What keeps resistance to oppression going over the long run?

“Ted Stolze finds, in the writings of Baruch Spinoza, resources, that can help socialists and other radicals persevere and carry on with their political struggles. I’m C.S. Soong, the philosophy professor and specialist in Spinoza and Marx joins us, after these News Headlines with Aileen Alfandary.” (c. 1:04)

[KPFA News Headlines (read by Aileen Alfandary) omitted by scribe] [2] (c. 6:55)

C.S. SOONG: “From the studios of KPFA in Berkeley, California, this is Against the Grain on Pacifica Radio. My name is C.S. Soong.

“People rise up in anger. They cry out and gather on the streets and organise in their communities in response to some injustice, something, that provokes indignation and outrage. And, sometimes, this upsurge in protest can go on for some time, for weeks and even months. And, then, often, the demos begin to fizzle out. And the anger subsides. And a lot of people go back to their everyday lives.

“So, if a key question hovering over radical politics and activism is how to sustain resistance, how to motivate or inspire people to stick with it, then what, or who, can we turn to for resources, for ideas about how to keep radicals going over the long run?

“Baruch Spinoza was a 17th century Dutch philosopher, who wrote a lot about the human condition. And my guest, today, has found, in Spinoza’s writings, ideas, that he believes can help radicals persevere as radicals.

“Ted Stolze is a philosophy professor at Cerritos College in Norwalk, California. And he contributed an article entitled ‘An Ethics for Marxism: Spinoza On Fortitude’ to the journal Rethinking Marxism. He’s also author of the forthcoming book, Becoming Marxist: Studies In Philosophy, Struggle, and Endurance.

“Now, Spinoza was born in Amsterdam in 1632. His Portugese-Jewish parents had moved there to escape persecution. I asked Ted Stolze what he likes to emphasise about Spinoza’s early life.” (c. 8:37)

DR. TED STOLZE: “He was the son of a fruit merchant. So, he grew up in a, sort of a, business climate. And, in one of his earliest works, called A Treatise On the Improvement of the Understanding—is the customary title—Spinoza reflects that he had sought out various forms of truth and goodness and came to the realisation—this isn’t, necessarily, an autobiographical statement on his part; but this is a universal experience, that I think reflects, in part, his autobiography. He’d realised that wealth and honour and pleasure were fleeting, were inadequate. [3]

“And the limited biographical materials, that have survived—and later biographers have drawn on these—suggest that he was a very sensitive young man. He was not comfortable or satisfied with remaining within the context of his father’s business. [4] His brother did pursue that. But, Spinoza, himself, saw the limitations, the constraints of, even, a successful business.

“And he was widely regarded as a very precocious student. His Latin teacher, Franciscus van den Enden, was a big influence on him. He became very interested in theatre and the arts and may, even, have acted in some plays, that van den Enden produced.

“So, he just seems to have been a very precocious young man, who saw the limitations of the life, that was laid out for him. And he had a kind of—I guess we could call it—an existential crisis or a philosophical conversion. I’m not sure, exactly, what would be the best way of characterising it.

Baruch Spinoza was eventually banned by his Sephardic Jewish community for being an independent-thinking radical in 17th century Amsterdam.

C.S. SOONG: “At age 17, Spinoza cut short his formal studies to help the family’s business. At age 24, he was excommunicated from the Sephardic community of Amsterdam. Tell us about that.” (c. 10:49)

DR. TED STOLZE: “Well, excommunicated is more of a Christian way of explaining. He fell under a ban by the elders of the Jewish synagogue, or community, in Amsterdam. And they were in a somewhat precarious situation. If I were thinking along their lines: Here’s a young, radical, free-thinker, who is endangering the stability and respect and toleration, that was offered to the Jewish community in Amsterdam.

“Throughout Europe, there were very few places, in which Jews could worship openly and not fear persecution, social isolation. So, I think there was a level of discomfort with Spinoza. And it was a mutual parting of the ways, frankly. I think Spinoza was, at that point, not really content to remain within the small circle of friends and family within the Jewish community. He had already met people through his father’s business. He had met other individuals, just, in everyday intellectual pursuits and his studies.

“So, in a way, it sounds harsh to say it was an excommunication or a ban. I would think we could call it a mutual parting of the ways.” (c. 12:08)

C.S. SOONG: “Now, we are talking, this hour, about an article you wrote for the journal Rethinking Marxism. It’s called ‘An Ethics for Marxism: Spinoza On Fortitude‘. And what you’re trying to do is draw on resources, that you find within Spinoza, within his thought and writing, resources, that might aid what?, that might help whom? And I assume, of course, and I know, that this relates to the socialist project, the project of people, who have read, and understood, and taken from Karl Marx.”

DR. TED STOLZE: “Yes. Well, I’ve been an activist most of my adult life. Most recently, as a union president, as a faculty union president. Previously, in the anti-apartheid movement, Central America solidarity, anti-Gulf War movement.

“And, over the years, it occurred to me—it’s very difficult—and I think this is true of other activists as well—it’s pretty difficult to sustain a commitment to radical social change, partly because of the ups and downs of movements, partly because of the stresses, that activism plays upon each individual, emotionally, and their friendships and family relationships.

“Now, Spinoza wouldn’t be the only person one could turn to. But, I think, Spinoza’s discussion of emotions, the affects, to use his technical term, is, potentially, fruitful for radical activists to think through. On the one hand, what causes people to become motivated to participate within radical political projects, but also what can sustain their commitments, especially in the context of the ups and downs of struggles and that many of the movements, that we participate within, will not fully achieve what we hope that they will achieve [within our lifetimes].

“So, it’s that unevenness, I think, of the rise and fall of social movements and how activists and organisers can regularly rethink and adjust themselves to that ebb and flow of movements. A very specific, recent, example, I think, is, like many people, I was supportive of the Bernie Sanders campaign. And even that slogan, to feel the Bern, was very contingent on the success of the campaign and forces, that we don’t always have much control over. [7]

“So, how do you sustain a commitment, even past the defeat of Bernie Sanders, or whatever comes after Bernie Sanders?” (c. 15:07)

Well, I clearly see emotional appeals by musicians, by artists. For many of my generation, music played a very important role, whether it was the Rolling Stones or Bob Dylan or Marvin Gaye.

I mean the ability of music to animate a desire for a society to be very different; that’s what I would call a utopian element within the arts or a romantic impulse within much music and art.

C.S. SOONG: “Socialists should, in an effort to persuade others to join in the socialist project—right? I mean part of what socialists want to do is to build the movement. They should, and they do, use facts and arguments; and, they, also, you write, should rely on emotion, by which you mean what?”

DR. TED STOLZE: “Well, I clearly see emotional appeals by musicians, by artists. For many of my generation, music played a very important role, whether it was the Rolling Stones or Bob Dylan or Marvin Gaye. I mean the ability of music to animate a desire for a society to be very different; that’s what I would call a utopian element within the arts or a romantic impulse within much music and art.

“Of course, there’s also music or art, that plays upon anger, indignation, rage, a sense of injustice, that things should not be like this, cannot be allowed to remain like this.

“Also, I think of, in public meetings and in public events, there’s a tendency for, maybe anger and indignation is the common emotional appeal. The danger, of course, and this is why, I think, partly, Spinoza is important. If you rely on, simply, anger or indignation to arouse a crowd, it can’t easily be sustained. I mean, in the short-run, it might be very effective. But my concern is: How do you sustain that kind of emotional appeal. It’s extremely short-lived or episodic. That would also be true of utopian and romantic appeals, that people can only live in that euphoric moment of, say, the Occupy Movement for a certain period of time. You know; weeks, months, perhaps. But that euphoria will tend to die down. And there is a return to the ordinary life, that we live.

“So, it’s this fluctuation of emotions, that is the problem, that I’ve observed and Spinoza in his Ethics, in his great work, especially, focuses on this kind of alternation of emotions, the dynamic of the affects between, for example, hope and fear, love and hatred. And, if all we are presented with is this fluctuation, we’re not really able to build the kind of movement, that is going to reach out and sustain itself through these ups and downs of whatever difficulties present themselves to us.” (c. 18:08)

[SNIP]

[(c. 23:57) Dr. Stolze draws upon an example from his experience with collective bargaining.] (c. 25:26)

C.S. SOONG: “I’m C.S. And this is Against the Grain on Pacifica Radio. Ted Stolze joins us. His academic research focuses primarily on Baruch Spinoza, the 17th century Dutch philosopher and Karl Marx and contemporary French and Italian philosophy. And he worked for five years as president of his American Federation of Teachers Local. And we are talking about something he wrote about Spinoza and Spinoza’s notion on fortitude and socialist politics, that appeared in the journal Rethinking Marxism.

“What about outrage toward a political system or a political injustice? And, you know, that outrage might not last very long, for a variety of reasons, you know, for practical reasons. We may just need to get back to work and deal with our jobs and our families and our personal lives.

“But what might the concept of fortitude and the subcategories of courage and generosity, that you laid out, that Spinoza advocated? What might fortitude do to help us work through that outrage and anger toward something more stable, less fluctuating, and more focused, and more enduring?” (c. 26:46)

DR. TED STOLZE: “Right. I think one of the difficulties here is to distinguish what Spinoza might be talking about and its relevance to radical politics. And I guess what has become rather popular is some notion of grit. I’ve seen a number of books, that have come out with this idea of grit. If only we could exert greater willpower or strength of character, that we will be successful in our personal lives or in business or something along those lines. [5]

“Spinoza is not suggesting that, as actuated individuals, we are going to be able to strengthen our emotional life. I don’t take what Spinoza is talking about as some kind of pop psychology for activists. You know; some sort of daily routine or regimen one goes through, not that anything would be, necessarily wrong with that. In this aspect, Spinoza could be seen as in continuity with a kind of Stoic tradition of regular reflection on one’s emotional life. You find this in Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus and Seneca in the ancient world. (c. 27:54)

“But I think for Spinoza, really, what’s needed is to build organisations, is to reach out to others, that the strengthening of one’s emotional life can’t fully be done by oneself, even through a very regular, regimented, routine of reflection.

“For example, we have to build sustainable movements, political parties, unions. And, if we think about fortitude in terms of the courage aspect, that’s only one element. The generosity aspect means that we take courage and strengthen our resolve in relation to others. So, there’s that dynamic interplay, that dialectic, we could call it, of courage and generosity. Those who are generous have courage strengthened, and vice versa.

“However, even within, very robust, dynamic organisations, there are periods of crisis. There are divisions. There are splits. So, even at that level there are no guarantees. But what I am trying to suggest is, for Spinoza, it’s not a merely psychological analysis of how we can rein in bad impulses or redirect bad impulses to good impulses. It’s a question of joining forces with others. And, for Spinoza, we increase our power to act in the world to the extent that we identify with, find support and encouragement in organisations with others.” (c. 29:36)

C.S. SOONG: “Another thing you bring up in this article in Rethinking Marxism is Spinoza’s insistence on looking for what’s good in whatever we come across. Can you elaborate on that?”

DR. TED STOLZE: “Yeah. Let me give a contemporary example. If you look at the presidential campaign, I think a lot of the liberals and progressives, that I know, have been unduly terrified by the specter of Donald Trump and those who support him. There is cause to be afraid. There is cause to be concerned. And, yet, the ascendancy of Trump suggests, as with the support, that people had for Bernie Sanders, that things are not going to continue on as they have in the past. There’s something new, that has emerged. And it’s not that I would say there’s something good in Trump. But the Trump phenomenon indicates the discontent, the lack of satisfaction with the way U.S. capitalism is going. And it’s an opportunity. [6]

“So, the tragedy to me is that I think Bernie Sanders would have been able to, and was able to, reach the people, who were responding to Trump, or at least some of them. [7] And, given the nature of the campaign, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is simply not, it would appear, interested in trying to reach those people, but rather simply relying on fear of consigning those who support Trump—simply to exclude them from consideration. [8]

“Now, I have family members, who are sympathetic to Trump. So, it is challenging at a personal level to try to find some good out of what can be very, very frustrating [chuckles] conversations. But this is the nature of politics and political debate and discussion to try to find some good in one’s opponent, not that you’re going over to the side of your opponent. But you’re trying to strengthen your own arguments in the process.

“So, I think what Spinoza is saying is a realisation that there is, neither, pure good, nor bad, in the world. There are relative degrees of good and bad. And, even in a very negative situation, a situation of fear, there are bases of hope, even in a very negative campaign, like the Trump campaign, there are symptoms or indications that there’s something more interesting going on that radicals, leftists, can seek to identify and to redirect, within limits, to their own efforts at a more progressive, egalitarian, social transformation.” (c. 32:32)

C.S. SOONG: “I wanna step back here and talk about Spinoza and his ethics and his ethical project and what it brings to the Marxists, specifically Marxist projects. And you bring this up in your article. Maybe, as a way of getting into this, we could talk about to what degree you think ethics was a part of Marx. To what degree Marx focused on ethics, as opposed to politics and capitalism and economics? What’s your take on that?”

DR. TED STOLZE: “Well, I’ve been in—let me take it in two different directions. I’ve been in socialist organisations. And my first real exposure to an education in socialist ideas was not in an academic setting, but in a socialist organisation, Solidarity, which is a small, national organisation. But it still exists. I remain sympathetic to that perspective of socialism from below, which is a term, that Hal Draper, who was very closely connected to the Berkeley Free Speech movement, as a librarian at UC Berkeley. That’s his term, socialism from below or, in Marxist politics, the idea that socialism requires the self-emancipation of the working class.

“The difficulty, however, among Marxists within many of the organisations, that I’m familiar with and, to a certain extent, within my own experience, that ethics hasn’t played the sort of role, that it really ought to play. I don’t mean that ethics should play the primary role. But so much of the discussion within socialist groups tends to be dealing with a current political issue or a discussion of economics or foreign policy or something along these lines. And there’s not enough attention paid to: So, why is that wrong? And how ought we to react at a level other than just a factual analysis?

“So, part of my concern is that socialist organisations have not paid enough attention to matters of ethics. But in Marx you do see—in Marx’s early writings, in Marx’s political writings, in Capital, itself, you see—a willingness, not just to describe capitalism and the nature of capitalist crises, but to condemn capitalism, to not provide a blueprint of what the alternative might be, what socialism might look like. I don’t think Marx was interested in blueprints. But he was a theorist and consistent critic of the injustices of capitalism, the degradation, the lack of dignity, that working people experience under capitalist social relations.

“So, I think there’s sort of a disconnect between the socialist organisations, that I’ve been involved in, where there isn’t much attention paid to ethics. And, yet, Marx’s writings seem to be filled with moral condemnation of the injustices of capitalism. That doesn’t mean that that’s all there is in Marx. But I am suggesting that that is a resource in Marx’s writings, that contemporary socialists might want to pay attention to.

“Probably, the best example of somebody who tried to do that was an English philosopher named Norman Geras, who wrote eloquently on the need for Marxists to re-engage with ethical reflection, both, and with criticising the injustices of capitalism, but also in trying to identify what would be just means to surpass or supersede or replace capitalism.

“So, there’s a moral deficit, I think, within many organisations of the left, and the socialist organisations, that I’ve been a part of. For all of their good work and intelligent activism, there needs to be that kind of rethinking of those moral resources, that we find within Marx’s writings, and not just Marx. You find it with Rosa Luxemburg. You find it in Antonio Gramsci. You find it in the Frankfurt School. You find it as part of the Marxist tradition. Herbert Marcuse would be another example of a Marxist philosopher, who was deeply concerned with a moral condemnation of capitalism, not simply a characterisation of how capitalism works with capitalist crises, but why capitalism must be challenged and, to the extent that we can, reformed and, we hope, replaced with a much better kind of society or a socialist democracy, if we want to use that term.” (c. 37:44)

C.S. SOONG: ” [SNIP] ”

[(c. 38:12) music break: song about courage and going “against the grain”] (c. 39:30)

C.S. SOONG: And this is Against the Grain on Pacifica Radio. My name is C.S. Soong.

“Ted Stolze is a philosophy professor at Cerritos College. And he taught philosophy and religious studies for a dozen years now at, what is now, California State University-East Bay. And we are talking about an article. And, actually, it’s, really, a much broader research and academic investigational project he has into the work of Baruch Spinoza, who was born in 1632 and died in 1677. He was a Dutch philosopher born of Portuguese–Jewish parents, who had fled to Amsterdam to escape persecution.

“His magnum opus is The Ethics, which was published in 1677. He died in The Hague that year. How political was Baruch Spinoza? I mean we’ve been talking about his analysis of emotions, his understanding of things like fortitude and courage and generosity, and the distinction he made between passive and active affects, or emotions.

“To what degree was he politically engaged? And, to what extent did he use the kinds of ethical resources, he was offering to the world, specifically, in political struggle or political activity?” (c. 41:01)

DR. TED STOLZE: “Well, we wouldn’t want to characterise Spinoza as an activist. He did have a circle of friends, that he met regularly with and discussed philosophy and science, undoubtedly, discussed current affairs.

“When the Dutch Republic was in danger, he certainly supported the leaders of the Republic, the De Witt brothers. But he was not somebody, who you would say was engaged in a modern political sense. That was not really something, that he, perhaps, had any expertise or was not even something, which was possible for him. It is interesting, that, however, that his Latin teacher, Franciscus van den Enden, was a very committed advocate of radical democratic politics and was, in France, accused of being a spy and, in fact, executed on a charge he was participating in a plot to assassinate the King of France. (c. 42:10)

“So, I’m under the assumption that Spinoza’s relationship to his Latin teacher would’ve been one in which he was exposed to very democratic ideas. And, in the 17th century, these were ideas, that were largely suppressed in Europe, with the exception in the mid-17th century of the English Civil War, in which King Charles the First and his army were defeated by a parliamentary army led by Oliver Cromwell, who in 1649 presided over the execution of King Charles and establishment of a Commonwealth, that last for the length of Cromwell’s life.

“But it turned into the kind of democratic republic, that I suspect, that Spinoza had hoped to see, and other, more radical elements within the parliamentary army and within English society had hoped to see. (c. 43:12)

“So, there was a kind of disillusionment, that some have thought occurred, or a waning of Spinoza’s enthusiasm for democratic politics. I’m not sure that that, in fact, is the case. But there is a kind of withdrawal of Spinoza, from direct political engagement. [9] And I think there’s, sometimes, a need for withdrawal to rethink. And The Ethics and the unfinished last work, that Spinoza wrote called A Political Treatise do have strong commitments, I would say, still, to thinking of democracy as one in which participation, rather than representation is the identifying feature.

“There was no freedom of speech in the 17th century. So, it would have been very difficult for Spinoza to have openly advocated democracy. The Dutch Republic was governed by a looking elite. And, when it was overthrown in the early 1670s, Spinoza was appalled by it and publicly sought to protest it. But his landlady, evidently, persuaded him to stay at home and not risk the anger of the mobs, who were celebrating the overthrow of the Republic and the re-establishment of the House of Orange monarchy.

“So, I don’t think you’re gonna find in Spinoza a necessarily good model of an activist, the way we would understand an activist. But Spinoza’s philosophy, I think, and his commitment to democracy in this participatory sense is very useful for contemporary activists.” (c. 45:09)

C.S. SOONG: “We’ve already talked about the pitfalls of acting out of outrage or anger or maybe the problems with anger and outrage as resources with which to fuel a continuing sort of activism or agitation. What about pity? What did Spinoza think of acting out of pity for others?”

DR. TED STOLZE: ” [Spinoza was not sympathetic to pity as it implied a sense of superioty, such as offering a homeless person a handout but not doing anything to identify nor challenge the causes and sources of that poverty. Spinoza had a deeper sense of pity, borne of a deeper egalitarian impulse to recognise the source of the suffering and to do something about it.] [SNIP] ”

C.S. SOONG: [SNIP] ” (c. 47:55)

DR. TED STOLZE: ” [SNIP] [TW: On Negri, values, intergenerational struggle, etc.] (c. 50:57)

“So, I think what Spinoza offers, his philosophy has offered, to me at least, the way of thinking, not just how we become radicalised, initially, either, through hope or anger or some combination of the two, but how we can, over the course of our lives, continue to build, continue to hope, continue to think, continue to reach out and join forces with others in new organisations, new parties, new struggles to come. We, again, may not live to see the fruits of our efforts. But we continue in that direction, nonetheless.” (c. 51:38)

C.S. SOONG: ” [SNIP] ”

[SNIP]

[SNIP] (c. 59:59)

Learn more at AGAINST THE GRAIN.

[This transcript will be expanded as time constraints, and/or demand or resources, allow.]

***

[1] Terrestrial radio broadcast, 94.1 FM (KPFA, Berkeley, CA) with online simulcast and digital archiving: Against the Grain, this one-hour broadcast hosted by co-host C.S. Soong, Monday, 26 SEP 2016, 12:00 PDT.

Programme summary from KPFA.org archive page:

“Radical political projects suffer when people burn out, get distracted, or otherwise drift away. What can help socialists and other leftists stay on course and even deepen their commitment over the long term? Ted Stolze finds in the writings of the philosopher Baruch Spinoza conceptual resources that he thinks can help radicals persevere.

Rethinking Marxism”

[2] Topics included: the 2016 two-party presidential debate #1, mass shooting by Dessai(sp?); jury selection in trial of Dylan Routh(sp?) for hate crimes; man pies mayor, mayor punches man in the face, requiring stitches; etc.

[3] We may recall the fable of Siddartha Gautama.

[4] On existential angst and feeling unsatisfied with the status quo:

“Unsatisfied” by The Replacements

[5] Indeed, in the great American tradition of stoicism, the legendary John Wayne may come to mind, in the classic film, True Grit (1969), recently remade starring Jeff Bridges (2010). Adapted from the 1968 novel. Or simply consider the concept of grit, as a personality trait, in the American culture.

[6] In recent years, Ralph Nader has spoken and written about a burgeoning potential for a left-right, working class, coalition, emphasising that rank-and-file conservatives and liberals are largely working class people with more in common than they think. See Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State (2014).

[7] Actually, the biggest tragedy is that Senator Bernie Sanders quit on his supporters by acquiescing to the two-party machine, or the two-party dictatorship.

Firstly, there was evidence that Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign was illegally aided by the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the Democratic Party, which favored Hillary Clinton and worked behind the scenes to discredit and defeat Bernie Sanders. Yet, Sanders did not demand that Clinton’s campaign be disqualified. He didn’t even call for any further investigation. Sanders simply did not fight back. He simply said that he was “not surprised”, but he was “disappointed”. Then, when Obama sat him down in the White House, he came back almost reprogrammed. He was no longer campaigning to win, but to influence Hillary’s campaign. On day one of the 2016 Democratic Primary, despite droves of his supporters still backing him, he immediately conceded to Hillary Clinton claiming that he did not have a mathematical chance of winning. His supporters booed and cried out in anguish. Yet, there had already been indications of electoral fraud, which has been further substantiated by this point. (See Greg Palast’s various election reports, including for Rolling Stone and KPFA/Pacifica Radio’s Flashpoints. Also see Greg Palast’s new documentary film The Best Democracy That Money Can Buy.) Bernie Sanders could have fought back against the illegitimacy of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. But he chose not to.

Secondly, Bernie Sanders’ campaign could have unanimously defeated Hillary Clinton’s campaign had Bernie Sanders featured his own chief economist Dr. Stephanie Kelton (University of Missouri-Kansas City), a heterodox economist of the Post-Keynesian variety, who is also currently one of Politico‘s Top 50 most influential people (#44 to Bernie’s #1 position). Instead, Sanders basically squandered Dr. Kelton’s expertise and her technically sound, yet revolutionary, economic policy proposals, which Bernie supporters would have loved. Had Bernie Sanders led with Dr. Kelton, someone with the passion, intellect, and charisma comparable to an Elizabeth Warren, the Sanders campaign could have included in its political platform the heterodox economics policy proposal of the job guarantee program, which can end involuntary unemployment, as we know it. Dr. Kelton could have explained to the American people, via Bernie’s campaign, how modern money theory (or MMT, modern monetary theory), monetary sovereignty, having a sovereign currency, and how our current economic system works, which means the government can afford to spend for public purpose without fiscal constraints. With all the talk about the need for jobs from all sides, including Trump and Hillary, it’s truly tragic that Bernie Sanders chose not to allow Dr. Kelton (and other heterodox economists) to explain how a job guarantee is possible, feasible, and necessary for the economic well-being of the nation.

Senator Bernie Sanders could have challenged the cheating and collusion on the part of the Hillary Clinton campaign during the Democratic Primary election. He could’ve denounced the Democratic Party for being anti-democratic against him and his campaign. He could’ve denounced the collusion between the Democratic and Republican parties to block other political parties from their nationally broadcast presidential debates. He could’ve ran as an independent. He could’ve joined forces with the Green Party. He could’ve stood courageously, instead of caving in, allowing himself to be reprogrammed, and immediately backing neoliberal Hillary Clinton without qualification. Instead Bernie Sanders sold out in the worst way.

[8] Actually, it’s more than just “given the nature of the campaign”. Actually, more precisely, it’s given the nature of the two-party system, the two-party dictatorship. The limitations Dr. Stolze refers to extend beyond this particular election to the entire American political superstructure, which is anti-democratic in its suppression of political alternatives to the Democratic and Republican parties.

[9] If Spinoza really lost his revolutionary or democratic spirit toward the end of his life, if his writing and later philosophy reflect a certain resignation from civic engagement, could Spinoza be the prototype for the sell-out, bourgeois, or petty bourgeois mentality among politically stagnant or moribund liberals in the United States? Does Robert Putnam need to rewrite Bowling Alone with a reconsideration of Spinoza?

***

[Image of Baruch Spinoza by unknown.]

[26 SEP 2016]

[Last modified 12:23 PDT 3 OCT 2016]

Save

Lumpenproletariat

~ free speech

Tag Archives: Modern Monetary Theory

The Keiser Report: Free Money to the People

2016 California Voter Guide for the November General Election

November 2016 California Ballot Propositions

FREE SPEECH RADIO GENERAL ELECTION COVERAGE

FOOTNOTES

Rethinking Marxism: An Ethics for Marxism: Spinoza On Fortitude by Dr. Ted Stolze

Share this:

Like this:

November 2016 California Ballot Propositions

FREE SPEECH RADIO GENERAL ELECTION COVERAGE

FOOTNOTES

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: